Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:1546-DB) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No. 07 of 2025 XXXXXX, D/o XXXX, R/o XXXX, P.O. & P.S.- XXXX, Dist.- XXXX. --- --- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Jitendra Baraik, S/o Bhola Ram Baraik, R/o Vill- Simhatu Sarna Toli, P.O. & P.S.- Mahabuwang, Dist.- Simdega. --- --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. For the Resp. no. 2 : Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv. --- 03/21.01.2026 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 362/2021, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The prosecution case reveals that the informant (appellant herein) had developed acquaintance with the respondent no. 2 through Facebook and that it is alleged that in 2014, the respondent no. 2 had forcibly established physical relationship with the appellant and on the threat that the matter will be reported to the Police and her family members, the respondent no. 2 had assured the appellant of solemnizing marriage with her and subsequent thereto, physical relationship was established between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 continuously for several years. It has also been alleged that since the issue of marriage was being Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:1546-DB) 2 delayed by the respondent no. 2, she had filed an application at Basia P.S. and when the respondent no. 2 had come to know of the said fact, he had managed to convince her that he will marry the appellant after Holi. Even then, the marriage could not be solemnized and ultimately the appellant was forced to institute an FIR. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Basia P.S. Case No. 09/2021 was instituted against the respondent no. 2. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 362/2021. Charge was framed against the respondent no. 2 for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined as many was 09 witnesses in support of its case. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 13.12.2024 had acquitted the respondent no. 2 from the charge levelled against him. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the victim/appellant has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It has been submitted that the delay in institution of the FIR has been sufficiently explained as on the pretext of marriage, the respondent no. 2 had continued to establish physical relationship with her and in the meantime, the respondent no. 2 had solemnized another marriage which had resulted in institution of the FIR by the appellant having no other alternative available to her. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the compromise which was earlier effected between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 is Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:1546-DB) 3 concerned, the signature of the appellant was forcibly taken and which fact has been mentioned by her in her evidence as P.W.1 as well as in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, submitted that the learned trial court has misdirected itself while acquitting the respondent no. 2. Mr. K.S. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that there has been an inordinate and unexplainable delay of about 7 years in institution of the FIR. It has further been submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly depicts that she was a consenting party to the sexual overtures of the respondent no. 2 and in fact, she in her evidence has admitted that she was a consenting party to the physical relationship which was established between them. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The evidence of P.W.1 which has been summarized in the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2024 categorically reveals that the initial incident of establishing physical relationship between the appellant and the respondent no. 2 was on account of the consent on the part of the appellant which she has categorically admitted. It further appears that the appellant at the time of the first incident was a major and such relationship continued with her consent and with her permission for the next 07 years after which the FIR was instituted. Even the evidence of the I.O. reveals that in course of investigation, it had come to light that though the respondent no. 2 was willing to solemnize marriage with the appellant, but it was on account of the refusal on the part of the appellant that the marriage could not be solemnized. The I.O. has also stated that the only place of occurrence was the Neutral Citation (2026:JHHC:1546-DB) 4 house of the appellant and not the other place which had been mentioned by her. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.2 who was staying on rent in the premises of the appellant that respondent no. 2 regularly used to visit the house of the appellant and used to spend the night there. The entire gamut of evidence adduced by the prosecution would reveal that apart from the appellant being a consenting party to the advances made by the respondent no. 2 for establishing physical relationship for more than 6 years, it also appears that the case was instituted by way of a counterblast on account of the respondent no. 2 having solemnized marriage with another girl. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the evidence of the witnesses and more importantly, the evidence of the appellant who has been examined as P.W.1 and on a threadbare discussion has come to a conclusion that the charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC has not been proved by the prosecution. We do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 362/2021 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated- 21st January, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 27 /01//2026.